Art and Subobjectivity

[Roger Bissell]

I hear you [re my current time-stinginess]. That's a very good reason for not bothering with my essays -- or, at least, with not finishing them. I don't expect that anyone who substantially disagrees with me is going to waste their valuable time refuting me -- or even asking me to clarify -- unless my views reached a point of influence that they became threatening. So, take what you like and leave the rest. Surely, though, there are some people on this list who think I'm on the right track and that I have something to contribute to the Objectivist worldview. If not, I'd like to find out sooner, rather than later! And your comments are certainly a step in that direction.

Roger, a possible misunderstanding you might have in regard to where I'm coming from lies in overlooking that I never have felt that my own "worldview" was that of Objectivism. Yes, I'm interested by Rand. If I weren't interested by her work, I wouldn't have participated on Atlantis (which is where you and I "met"). But I've always considered my own approach to life to have proceeded along a similar vein to hers but in many respects to have been divergent from hers. I have no doubt whatsoever that you have "something to contribute to the Objectivist worldview." I think you're one of the most significant people writing within that general "worldview." My lack of desire to become involved in detailed discussion of your work on...(um) esthetics(?)...isn't because of any belief that you aren't contributing importantly to Objectivist discourse but because Objectivism isn't my own frame of reference. I hope you understand the distinction. I am NOT in any respect minimizing the importance of your work to "the Objectivist worldview."

Ellen

___

Thanks, Ellen. That was very gracious and very clarifying.

Best always,

REB

[Victor Pross]

I suppose all those in favor of abstract painting and postmodernist “art” should be thankful for Foundation Grants—that Bourgeois beneficence that enables unmarketable so-called artists to continue expressing their contempt for bourgeois values.

[Jonathan]

Ellen wrote,

The idea that art works are "specific entities open to man's direct perception" is much easier to make a sort of sense from if we're talking about the visual arts. There, we have something which can properly be described as an "entity." But what, strictly speaking, is that "entity"? I'll talk about a painting for convenience. The painting as a physical object is a fairly flat, often rectangular entity which might or might not be hung on a wall. But is the imaginary world portrayed in the painting actually an "entity"? And is "perception" what's really grasping the visual display? I think not; and I doubt that other animals besides humans would even "see" the "picture"...

Where is there any "entity" which is being displayed for direct perception in a novel? The story isn't the book. A book might be a beautifully designed thing to look at of itself; book design is an applied art. And a book might be illustrated, so that there are pictures as assists (or, in some cases, I've found, interferences) to the imagination. But consider just the story in a non-illustrated novel. Where is the, quoting Rand, "specific [entity] open to man's direct perception"? There isn't one. There are words comprising sentences comprising paragraphs. To imagine the story is a conceptual not a perceptual process.

I guess that's something that I really haven't thought about before. I've glossed over Rand's statement about art presenting "entities" open to "direct perception," since I took her notion of "re-creation of reality" to actually mean something like "creation of an imaginary alternative reality" in which the concept or appearance of entities (or some of their attributes) is presented. I wonder to what degree Objectivists' views on visual art -- both as to what is or is not art, and what is good or bad art -- have been influenced by the belief that visual art is primarily an idealized two-dimensional likeness of perceivable objects from three-dimensional reality.

I've posted this before - Mark Tansey's "The Innocent Eye Test"...

...in which scholars and technicians are observing a cow's reaction to a painting of a cow and bull.

There's also the story of a contest held between Zeuxis and Parrhasius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeuxis_and_Parrhasius

The greatness of art in the above examples is measured in terms of whether or not the artist has created a lifelike semblance of things from reality well enough to fool viewers into believing that the things seen are actually real, as opposed to whether or not he has created an original, imaginative expression. Is that the typical Objectivist view of the purpose of visual art?

Btw, Michael Newberry has just recently posted a new tutorial on abstraction in representational art:

http://newberryworkshop.com/Tutorial/abstract/abstract.html

J

Edited January 22, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Victor wrote,

I suppose all those in favor of abstract painting and postmodernist “art” should be thankful for Foundation Grants—that Bourgeois beneficence that enables unmarketable so-called artists to continue expressing their contempt for bourgeois values.

Don't forget architecture, Victor. Just think of the billions in public dollars and private foundational grants that have been wasted on creating "art" buildings when steel and concrete boxes would have sufficed. And who was involved in the intellectual sham of promoting through her art the idea that architecture is art? Who was one of the world's most influential figures in trying to destroy the meaning of art by claiming that architecture was art?

J

Edited January 22, 2007 by Jonathan

[Victor Pross]

Victor wrote,

I suppose all those in favor of abstract painting and postmodernist “art” should be thankful for Foundation Grants—that Bourgeois beneficence that enables unmarketable so-called artists to continue expressing their contempt for bourgeois values.

Don't forget architecture, Victor. Just think of the billions in public dollars and private foundational grants that have been wasted on creating "art" buildings when steel and concrete boxes would have sufficed. And who was involved in the intellectual sham of promoting through her art the idea that architecture is art? Who was one of the world's most influential figures in trying to destroy the meaning of art by claiming that architecture was art?

J

Jonathan

I don't know, Ayn Rand? And your point is....???? What is this? The "Rand people" versus the "non-Rands"?? Where are you going with posts like this?

Anyway, I am against the public funding of the arts, period. And yes, architecture is not art.

-Victor

[Jonathan]

Victor,

I'm just curious as to why you don't have the same intensity of reaction toward Rand, Wright and everyone else who believes that architecture is art that you have toward people who believe that abstract art is art. Where's all the huffing and puffing about Rand trying to "destroy art" by including architecture as a valid art form and writing a very powerful, influential novel about it?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wonder to what degree Objectivists' views on visual art -- both as to what is or is not art, and what is good or bad art -- have been influenced by the belief that visual art is primarily an idealized two-dimensional likeness of perceivable objects from three-dimensional reality.

I think that that idea is shot through the fabric of most Objectivists' views on visual art -- even through that of their views on literary arts, and of course through their difficulties fitting music in and their reservations about architecture's qualifying as art.

I don't expect to have time to read Michael Newberry's tutorial. If you get the chance, could you write a hint as to what he says? I'm curious as to whether or not his artistic judgment gets the better of his O'ist philosophy, but not curious enough to read the tutorial myself.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't expect to have time to read Michael Newberry's tutorial. If you get the chance, could you write a hint as to what he says?

Ellen,

Michael Newberry's mini-tutorials are wonderful little bursts of wisdom and insight. They are all short, so don't worry about time. It will take you only a couple of minutes to read one.

Michael gave me permission to post them on OL, and I started a while back. Kat and I set up a special thread for them. But then, we only started supplying links due to time constraints. I will use your questions as a prompt to expand them and terminate my state of torpidity with respect to these gems. They more than deserve it.

Michael

[sjw]

Torres and Kamhi have written about how Binswanger decided to leave "art" out of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, apparently at Rand's urging shortly before she died. Talk about "airbrushing" embarrassing details out of the philosophy!!

"Art" is in the Lexicon. Lots of entries about it in fact.

[Dragonfly]

It's obvious that Roger meant "architecture", not "art".

[sjw]

It's obvious that Roger meant "architecture", not "art".

No, what's obvious is that if you have a Lexicon, you could guess that he might have meant "architecture", and if you didn't have one, you'd expect that he meant what he said. It's also obvious that you just like to pick fights, and then you lose them. Over and over.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In all likelihood, that "art" was a typo and he meant "architecture." Here is Footnote 25 from Roger's essay, "Art as Microcosm: The Real Meaning of the Objectivist Concept of Art."

25. On their web site at , Torres and Kamhi provide evidence indicating that Rand may have suggested to Binswanger that he forego having an entry for architecture in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, on the grounds that architecture’s being utilitarian conflicted with her premise that art is essentially non-utilitarian. This interpretation of Rand’s and Binswanger’s conversation cannot be considered conclusive, however, since Binswanger included an entry for “Visual Art,” in which architecture was listed as a visual art, along with sculpture and painting. If Rand’s wishes were important enough to justify omitting the “Architecture” entry, why wouldn’t they also have justified omitting the “Visual Art” entry or, at least, deleting “architecture” from that entry? For that matter, why didn’t Rand or her followers ever give a public acknowledgment and explanation that there was something wrong with her definition of “art” and/or her characterization of architecture as an art?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

No, what's obvious is that if you have a Lexicon, you could guess that he might have meant "architecture", and if you didn't have one, you'd expect that he meant what he said.

It's obvious as this has been discussed already many times on this site, but you are too lazy to check that. Moreover, just by reading the sentence in the context it is also obvious, but that's probably also too much trouble for you.

It's also obvious that you just like to pick fights, and then you lose them. Over and over.

You are the one who is always picking fights, and you lose them all, which must be quite frustrating. I have at least contributed a lot of content to this site, so far you are only whining and throwing insults. Your record here is not impressive.

[sjw]

It's obvious as this has been discussed already many times on this site, but you are too lazy to check that. Moreover, just by reading the sentence in the context it is also obvious, but that's probably also too much trouble for you.

Oh, so now I have to read everything on this site to politely point out an inaccuracy? You've totally lost your marbles. If you ever had any.

[Dragonfly]

Oh, so now I have to read everything on this site to politely point out an inaccuracy? You've totally lost your marbles. If you ever had any.

You certainly don't have them.

[Jonathan]

Ellen wrote,

I don't expect to have time to read Michael Newberry's tutorial. If you get the chance, could you write a hint as to what he says? I'm curious as to whether or not his artistic judgment gets the better of his O'ist philosophy, but not curious enough to read the tutorial myself.

I threw in the note about Newberry's tutorial because it popped up in my mailbox and it ties in to the discussion here. I didn't mean to necessarily address it to your attention, but to others who might be interested and reading along. It's a very basic introduction to visual abstraction that I thought might be helpful to those who aren't especially geared toward visual/spatial thinking (and from our many past discussions, I know that your mind can function very well visually, so I didn't mean to imply that you would gain much from such basic instruction).

J

[Danneskjold]

This is reaching a new low in ridiculous flaming (yes that DEFINITELY qualifies as flaming). I, not owning the Ayn Rand Lexicon, never having read the Ayn Rand Lexicon, and knowing that Roger Bissell in all probability has, I took his statement at face value assuming that someone would point out any error. He was right to point out the error. He also did so without saying anything negative about Roger.

I think it was pretty much assumed that it was a typo because you'd have to be just plain stupid to say something that was that wrong intentionally with a bunch of people around who know exactly what you're talking about and can correct you. Roger has proved that he is far from stupid.

So, DragonFly, not so obvious that it was a typo, in my opinion at least. Shayne, I don't think Dragonfly was trying to pick a fight, although he very well might have been because if everybody knew that it was a typo already then why continue to draw attention to the correction?

Aside from that, well for christ's sake that was just dumb.

[Dragonfly]

Jeff, I find your message confusing, it's not quite clear to me what you want to say. Anyway, the only thing I wrote was It's obvious that Roger meant "architecture", not "art". In the very next message, Michael wrote: In all likelihood, that "art" was a typo and he meant "architecture". What's wrong if someone points out "this is an error", to clarify what it should have been? Michael and I just had the same idea to give the intended meaning. It surely takes a paranoiac to think this is "picking a fight", and making a lot of fuss about it.

[Danneskjold]

Ok, to simplify.

First: I disagree with you that it was obvious. I disagree because I did not even know that it was supposed to be architecture and not art.

Second: I also think that Shayne was over-sensitive. I do not think your intention was in any way to pick a fight.

Third: I think Shayne took it as you trying to pick a fight because, depending on interpretation of voice which is hard over the internet, you could put emphasis on the word "obvious" and your statement would sound like you are calling him stupid because he didn't see it and accept it as fact immediatly.

Fourth: The ensuing argument was just pointless.

[Dragonfly]

First: I disagree with you that it was obvious. I disagree because I did not even know that it was supposed to be architecture and not art.

Disagreements are fine, after all that's what a discussion forum is about. I still think it's obvious, even if you haven't followed the previous discussions, when you read the whole paragraph:

I also cringe (and often curse) when I read her "Art and Cognition" essay and see her blatant contradiction about architecture being a form of art, but one that does not re-create reality, though art by her definition ~does~ re-create reality. (Torres and Kamhi have written about how Binswanger decided to leave "art" out of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, apparently at Rand's urging shortly before she died. Talk about "airbrushing" embarrassing details out of the philosophy!!)

Fourth: The ensuing argument was just pointless.

Certainly. But this is quite typical for Objectivist forums worldwide. So far OL had been an agreeable exception; not that there hasn't been the occasional friction in the past, but nothing that couldn't be solved. I'm afraid that time is now over.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm afraid that time is now over.

Dragonfly,

No it isn't.

Both you and Shayne are good guys, so it will work out in the end. (One caveat, though. You are good guys like one being a good cat and one being a good dog. I predict there will always be some barking and hissing. You guys choose who is who. )

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Michael, you are an idealist, I'm a realist.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Are we discussing canines/felines as they are, or as the could and should be?

Michael

Edit: I just noticed. You're an insect, anyway. Talk about faking reality!

[Dragonfly]

Are we discussing canines/felines as they are, or as the could and should be?

You as you think they could be and should be, I as they are.

Edit: I just noticed. You're an insect, anyway. Talk about faking reality!

Hmmm, what is that "purrr" sound I always hear near you? And what are you doing there in Cockroach Corner?

[sjw]

Both you and Shayne are good guys, so it will work out in the end.

I wrote him off after he slinked away when I asked him what his motives were in demanding that I search through "The Objectivist" to find quotes to disprove the nonsense he was spewing into the forum about Ayn Rand's views on emotion.